In her two-part profile of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia aired on Sunday night's 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl seemed repeatedly surprised by how Scalia in person isn't the “polarizing figure” who protesters call a “fascist,” as she conceded: “What's interesting is the difference between how you appear in person and the image that you have. Because the writings are so often combative, and your friends say that you're charming and fun.” In short, Scalia really does not match the left-wing characterization of him adopted by Stahl's media colleagues.
Stahl opened her piece by describing Scalia as “one of the most brilliant and combative justices ever to sit on the court” before contending that he “is a polarizing figure who invites protestors and picketers.” As she spoke, viewers heard from a man with a matching sign: “Scalia is a fascist!” Stahl told Scalia what she's heard about him: “'He's evil.' 'He's a Neanderthal.' 'He's going to drag us back to 1789.'” Stahl informed him: “The public sense of you is that you make your decisions based on your social beliefs.” Citing “Roe v. Wade and affirmative action,” she elaborated, “His critics argue that originalism is a cover for what they see as Justice Scalia's real intention: to turn back some pivotal court decisions of the 60s and 70s.”
Stahl began the second segment, on Scalia's childhood in New York, his wife and kids and his future, by acknowledging, “In spending time with him, we found something we hadn't expected: a person so unpretentious and down to earth, you could easily forget he sits on the Supreme Court.”
CBS News.com has a rough transcript with complete video of the two segments.
Some excerpts from the stories on the April 27 edition of 60 Minutes:
LESLEY STAHL Not many Supreme Court justices become famous. Antonin Scalia is one of the few. Known as "Nino" to his friends and colleagues, he's one of the most brilliant and combative justices ever to sit on the court and one of the most prominent legal thinkers of his generation.He first agreed to talk to us about a new book he's written about how lawyers should address the court. But over the course of several conversations, our story grew into a full-fledged profile -- his first major television interview -- including discussions about abortion and Bush v. Gore.
At 72, Justice Scalia is still a maverick, championing a philosophy known as "orginalism," which means interpreting the Constitution based on what it originally meant to the people who ratified it over 200 years ago.
Justice Scalia has no patience with so-called activist judges, who create rights not in the Constitution -- like a right to abortion -- by interpreting the Constitution as a "living document" that adapts to changing values.
....
He's on a mission as an evangelist for originalism, at home and around the world. Here he is at the Oxford Union in England.
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Sometimes people come up to me and inquire, “Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?” You know, as though it's some weird affliction, you know, “When did you start eating human flesh?” [laughter from students]
STAHL: They may be laughing, but in the U.S. Justice Scalia is a polarizing figure-
MAN WITH MATCHING SIGN: Scalia is a fascist!
-who invites protestors and picketers. There haven't been many Supreme Court justices who become this much of a lightening rod.
STAHL TO SCALIA: I’m surprised at how many people really, really hate you. These are some things we've been told: “He’s evil.” “He's a Neanderthal.” “He’s going to drag us back to 1789.” They're threatened by what you represent and what you believe in.
SCALIA: These are people that don't understand what my interpretive philosophy is. I'm not saying no progress. I'm saying we should progress democratically.
SCALIA AT OXFORD: You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law. And that law, unlike a Constitutional right to abortion created by a court can compromise. It can, oh I was going to say it can split the baby! I should not use -- a Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change.
STAHL But his critics argue that originalism is a cover for what they see as Justice Scalia's real intention: to turn back some pivotal court decisions of the 60s and 70s. He's been labeled a "counterrevolutionary."
STAHL TO SCALIA: You've been labeled a “counterrevolutionary!"
SCALIA: A counterrevolutionary.
STAHL: The idea being-
SCALIA: Sounds exciting.
STAHL: The critics say his aim is to undo Roe v. Wade and affirmative action, and allow more religion in public life.
STAHL TO SCALIA: The public sense of you is that you make your decisions based on your social beliefs. That is the perception.
STAHL: I'm a law-and-order guy. I mean, I confess I'm a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases. On the abortion thing for example, if indeed I were, you know, trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe versus Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion.
....
STAHL TO SCALIA: What's interesting is the difference between how you appear in person and the image that you have. Because the writings are so often combative, and your friends say that you're charming and fun.
SCALIA: I can be charming and combative at the same time. What’s contradictory between the two? I love to argue. I've always loved to argue. And I love to point out the weaknesses of the opposing arguments. It may well be that I'm something of a shin kicker. It may well be that I'm something of a contrarian.
STAHL: He's a contrarian with a pugnacious temperament. He loves to "take 'em on," as he often does with the lawyers who argue cases before the court. Some of his victims from white shoe law firms have been brought to near tears under his scorching questioning.
....
STAHL He's nothing if not certain and confident. How did he get that way? Where and how the Justice grew up, when we come back.
STAHL, OPENING SECOND SEGMENT: Antonin Scalia's rise to Supreme Court justice is a distinctly American story. The son of an Italian immigrant, he earned his way into Harvard Law School through old-fashioned hard work and determination. In spending time with him, we found something we hadn’t expected: a person so unpretentious and down to earth, you could easily forget he sits on the Supreme Court.
But what stands out is his sharp intelligence, and street-fighter personality which he developed growing up in New York City.
.....
Scalia, after 22 years on the court, is starting another career as an author. His new book, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, is surprisingly breezy in that it’s a primer for lawyers on how to win cases. His co-author is Bryan Garner, an expert on legal writing.
STAHL TO SCALIA: You say things in it like, ‘Be prepared. Look the judge in the eye.’ You almost make it sound like lawyers are imbeciles.
SCALIA: You would be surprised.
STAHL: They wrote the book together, occasionally sitting side by side, arguing. Surprisingly, Garner says, it was the justice who often showed humility by yielding.
.....
GARNER: I thought you were very deferential, and surprisingly so. It was disarming to me.
STAHL: Scalia deferential? That's something you never hear about him on the court, where he has been unable to persuade his fellow justices to come over to his way of thinking. The only other originalist on the court is Justice Clarence Thomas.....
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center





MAN WITH MATCHING SIGN: Scalia is a fascist!
STAHL: The critics say his aim is to undo Roe v. Wade and affirmative action, and allow more religion in public life.
But what stands out is his sharp intelligence, and street-fighter personality which he developed growing up in New York City. 















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Republicans ARE actually human?
April 28, 2008 - 13:36 ET by Melodic_MetalThis says alot. Here we have the typical 'journalist' actually SURPRISED that the 'fascist, hate mongering, white, homophobic, (maybe even Catholic)' Justice is, after all, a human. Feeling a little embarrassed are we Stahl? These people remind me of the 'Witch burners' in Monte Pythons Holy Grail. This is but a TASTE of what the MSM thinks.
"To beat Violence, You must ignore the focus groups. You must send in the Mossad, turn off the BBC, CNN, and don't look back."
There haven't been many
April 28, 2008 - 13:42 ET by Jack BauerYes there have. To name one: Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
It's just that conservatives and orginalists don't follow her around screaming obscenities.
well said
April 28, 2008 - 18:18 ET by wizardjrhit right on the head
Karl Rove
April 28, 2008 - 13:45 ET by iveseenitallKarl Rove is now on FOX. Quite a nice,intelligent, personable fellow. But because has been "politcally incorrect" in the media's eyes all these years, he has been a target for personal destruction. Same with Scalia. Moreover, it's all part and parcel of the ignorance spread in our schools and the MSM. It's an old saying among the "elites"--"the masses are asses". Trouble is that the "liberals" themslves are quite ignorant and thus "surprised" when they finally realize the truth.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Why to conservatives go on
April 28, 2008 - 13:45 ET by mattmWhy to conservatives go on 60 Minutes? They ought to know by now that these leftist propagandists are going to paint them as "contrarians" "combative" "mean" etc., etc., etc.
Their supposed surprise at discovering that a particular conservative is actually a nice guy demonstrates their ingrained prejudicial hate of conservatives. I wouldn't go on one of their shows unless I could set the agenda and control the final edit.
Are all of the right wing
May 1, 2008 - 02:51 ET by Not-Steve-DoocyAre all of the right wing readers of this website delusional, biased, manipulative jerks in real life or do they just act like that on the internet? Do you always view people as the extreme versions of whatever they believe in or do you take a realistic view of the world instead of ones colored by your political affiliations? You realize there's more to life than politics?
"In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -H.L. Mencken
"The only thing older than a 'John McCain is old' joke...is John McCain! That guy is ancient!" - Stephen Colbert
Allow me to retort
May 1, 2008 - 04:26 ET by UnsaneAre all of the right wing readers of this website delusional, biased, manipulative jerks in real life or do they just act like that on the internet? Funny, I was going to ask if you were just another bomb-throwing Leftist troll or are you really just such an asshole that it bleeds into your Internet postings!
Do you always view people as the extreme versions of whatever they believe in or do you take a realistic view of the world instead of ones colored by your political affiliations? It is quite laughable that this question comes from a Leftist. For a Leftist, EVERYTHING is political. Maybe you can enlighten us as what YOU think a "realistic view of the world" is.
You realize there's more to life than politics? That's all the proof I need to see you haven't been reading NB's comments very much. Check out the Open Threads sometime, where we discuss ALL sorts of things in this world, within and without the world of politics. Hell, watch how many times threads get derailed, unintentionally, by clever non-political banter.
Besides, considering your two taglines, that last question is just...asinine.
I take it you have a massive crush on Steve Doocy?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Law and Order Guy
April 28, 2008 - 13:53 ET by JDWReuters- Scalia repeated his earlier statement that people should "get over" the court's ruling in 2000 that halted Florida's vote recount, giving the presidential election to Republican Bush over Democrat Al Gore.
"I say nonsense," Scalia said, when asked about critics who say the 5-4 ruling was based on politics and not justice. "Get over it. It's soold by now."
We are arguing rules, the Florida Supreme Court cannot change that.
JDW
Sen Clinton: Distinguished Founder of Media Matters
I thought it was a 7-2
April 28, 2008 - 14:20 ET by Free ThinkerI thought it was a 7-2 decision in Gore's Florida 2000 election case.
News Media
April 28, 2008 - 14:50 ET by JDWVery good.
It was 7-2. The wrong numbers came from a Reuters cut and paste.
My point was 'get over it'.
JDW
Sen Clinton: Distinguished Founder of Media Matters
Hi JDW... The little
April 28, 2008 - 14:56 ET by bigtimerHi JDW...
The little whining leftists never will...just whine and cry...spin spin spin...try their best to change facts for their own false legacy for history....it does get old.
I wished they would just grow up someday....but wishing won't make it happen.
Good to see you here today...been awhile, for me catching you here anyway.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Hello
April 28, 2008 - 15:12 ET by JDWSpeaking of growing up, I wish the Maverick would. It has gotten to the point where he can no longer convince me to support him, the other side simply leaves me with no other option.
JDW
Sen Clinton: Distinguished Founder of Media Matters
They might even be surprised that Justice Scalia and Thomas...
April 28, 2008 - 14:04 ET by ThalpyThey might even be surprised that Justice Scalia and Thomas are, if fact, vastly more intelligent than they. Imagine!
They'd have to have some
April 28, 2008 - 14:08 ET by mattmThey'd have to have some level of intelligence to be able to recognize that, so I doubt that would ever happen.
If only we could say the same for you Lesley
April 28, 2008 - 14:29 ET by terrigI think Scalia enjoyed his little time with the snit.
I have been fortunate enough to get into a Supreme Court hearing(dealing with water in CO and AZ wanting more & it was also Thomas' first day on the bench) the funny thing was Scalia was looking up at the ceiling and in a split second he came out of nowhere and started asking this stupid lawyer for CO a question and I thought that guy was going to cry. He continued for another 5 minutes or so and then we had to leave. But it was an interesting exchange.
Could have been a lot worse
April 28, 2008 - 14:33 ET by mamawayThis 60 minutes wasn't as biased as I thought it would be (even though the Israeli Air Force segment still managed to invoke moral equivalence on terrorism and retaliatory collateral damage). But if they were truly objective, they would have done a better job outlining the arguments why Roe v. Wade was a terrible ruling, rather than just using Scalia's "combative" words.
Typical of leftists though: they couldn't attack his character, or come up with good arguments against his decisions, so they attacked his personality.
Scalia
April 28, 2008 - 15:48 ET by Mulligan22What is striking is how Stahl's approach was totally from a left wing view. As if the entire country thinks this man is some kind of beast. That's he's wrong and should realize it by changing with the times. No such questioning was done by her toward Ginsburg. Even a casual observers should see the bias in this story.
We are fortunate to have Scalia on the court.
If Leslie Stahl likes living rules some much, we should play some poker, for money, with living rules.
Originalism
April 28, 2008 - 16:15 ET by KC MulvilleScalia likes to call it a "dead" constitution, but for a man so gifted with words, I wish he wouldn't perpetuate the connotation that goes along with that. Originalism's premises are simple:
These three premises are all you need to dismiss any idea of a living constitution. Here's how it works. The states are legally the only parties who can change the constitution. Until they specifically change the agreement (as with any other contract), the agreement remains. And since agreement is the basis of moral authority, you can't abandon the original agreement without losing the authority. Our system is very clear. If you want a new law, you have to get our agreement.
A constitution isn't "alive" if you impose laws without proper consent. Indeed, to impose laws unilaterally is simply stealing authority. Living constitution, my ass.
I agree with Scalia when
April 28, 2008 - 21:05 ET by stratmanI agree with Scalia when he stated the Constitution is an "enduring" document, as in continuing to exist or to last.
I found is shameful and most telling how Leslie Stahl approached the entire interview with Scalia, displaying just how far down the rabbit hole of delusion she and her ilk have sunk. 60 Minutes and CBS are zero for two (Scalia and Thomas) in attempting to embarrass SCOTUS Justices in less than one year's time.
RRAM Tough!
It should not surprise you that they're getting along.
April 28, 2008 - 16:30 ET by sarcasmoIn real life, Justices Scalia & Ginsburg are very good friends(!!) from what I've heard from Court watchers, despite being almost complete opposites politically. Charming Leslie for a day or so probably wasn't even a challenge. (IMO she should have mentioned where Scalia and Thomas disagree, and questioned him there, but it doesn't appear she did!).
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Stahl repeatedly referred
April 28, 2008 - 17:02 ET by TEStahl repeatedly referred to unidentified "critics" of Scalia and Scalia's "image" and "[t]he public sense of [Scalia]".
"Critics"? "Image"? "The public sense of [Scalia]"?
Translation: Leftist "critics" like Stahl; the "image" of Scalia as imagined by leftists like Stahl; and "the public sense of" Scalia as shared by leftists like Stahl.
BTW, and this is not news, but Stahl is a very, very, very stupid feminist. I was embarrassed for the poor fool attempting to discuss the United States Constitution with Scalia.
And what's implicit . . .
April 28, 2008 - 18:00 ET by WingletDriverin her line of questions and commentary is that all of these "progressive" extraconstitutional rulings are sacrosanct. But what's really rich is she buys hook-line-and-sinker that his left wing critics are "the public."
Case in point:
STAHL: The critics say his aim is to undo Roe v. Wade and affirmative action, and allow more religion in public life.
STAHL TO SCALIA: The public sense of you is that you make your decisions based on your social beliefs. That is the perception.
Nice subtle twist from "The critics" to "The public. . . . That is the perception."
It's Stahl...
April 28, 2008 - 18:28 ET by BobAnthonyWHO IS THE FASCIST! After all, she is in the elitest corporate fascist media--and there is none bigger a fascist media outlet than CBS. I even heard the same treatment on--now don't get mad--NPR--with their sniveling old battleaxe Nina Totenberg. I was going for a physical this morning and needed something to get things going. Don't worry, I'm okay.
Liberals just don't get it.
April 28, 2008 - 20:39 ET by pbthinkerLiberals have, since the 60's, gotten themselves into the hate mode. They don't want to wina debate point, they want to destroy the competition. They have no clue that, what Scalia has said about Roe v. Wade is it should be left to the politicians to solve. Wwe have Democrats that don't want to take responsibility for their choices, they want the courts to mandate their choices so, if they don't work, they can disavow them and claim they had nothing to do with them. They are the ultimate in phoney.
I had to watch the entire interview. Talk about a clueless liberal, Leslie couldn't believe Scalia didn't eat human flesh for dessert.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
I TOO SUFFERED
April 28, 2008 - 21:28 ET by timzankthrough the entire piece, and while I wanted to shove a large stick in Stahls eye, I was delighted at Scalias quick wit and candor. He is a wise man, she is a two-bit ________.
“What's interesting is
May 1, 2008 - 06:00 ET by Jack BauerThat's because she thought the disgusting Daily KosHate site's photoshopped picture of Scalia in a Nazi uniform was his actual passport photo.